From: Foks0904
I'm glad to see you have put forward some testable
predictions. Ed's theory also puts forward some testable predictions, which
is important. I think the easiest ones should be well advertised and
investigated more thoroughly by those able in the community.
Well, that is another problem. There are actually unmet predictions already
available. These have been mentioned but ignored. If his theory were
accurate, there should be plenty of tritium formation in Ni-H. Lots more
than is seen.
That is a consequence of deuterium-protium having a much lower cross-section
than protium-protium. Tritium is the easiest proof of all. It is detectable
in infinitesimal amounts yet there is scant evidence of it in Ni-H
reactions. Sub-nanogram. There is some formed, but is fact, it is de
minimis. In fact, almost all of the deuterium formed from fusion of protons,
if it were really being formed, should go to tritium very rapidly, due to
lower cross-section.
Storms mentioned that Randell Mills, in the early days, had detected
tritium. This was in an old issue of Fusion Technology (highly regarded
magazine). Since Mills went on to develop his alternative theory where LENR
“does not occur”… we obviously heard no more from him on that detail. I am
certain that he saw tritium. However, what is “telling” about this episode,
and in the tiny rate of 3H formation - is not supported by way that Ed
interprets it. No way is it close to being commensurate with excess heat.
In fact, all of this information, taken together relative to the big
picture, is yet another indication that yes, many of the theories out there
are partially correct, at a very low level of participation, such that
fusion to deuterium, and then to tritium WILL indeed happen. However, when
this is happening at such low level, as low as the ppm level, it is orders
of magnitude too low to account for the massive thermal output.
Rossi’s reactor under test by the Swedes for 6 months at the kilowatt level,
under Storms’ view of protium fusion - should produce massive amounts of
tritium (if that theory were to be the only thing going on). It would not
surprise anyone if micrograms were seen after 6 months, instead of grams, we
will have to wait for that data, but if so it means that Ed’s theory is not
incorrect nor is it accurate, either. It simply does not explain 99% of the
thermal gain.
In the end – the miniscule tritium formation in Ni-H proves that yes –
proton-fusion is partially correct, but far from the whole story – and is
probably five to six orders of magnitude removed from being "The Explanation
of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction" insofar as it relates to the claimed gain of
the Rossi effect.
Jones
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
